Monday, October 12, 2015

Palestine: The Psychotic Stage

The Wall Street Journal

The truth about why Palestinians have been seized by their present blood lust.

Israeli security forces and emergency services next to the body of a 
Palestinian who carried out a stabbing attack in the old city of Jerusalem 


If you’ve been following the news from Israel, you might have the impression that “violence” is killing a lot of people. As in this headline: “Palestinian Killed As Violence Continues.” Or this first paragraph: “Violence and bloodshed radiating outward from flash points in Jerusalem and the West Bank appear to be shifting gears and expanding, with Gaza increasingly drawn in.”

Read further, and you might also get a sense of who, according to Western media, is perpetrating “violence.” As in: “Two Palestinian Teenagers Shot by Israeli Police,” according to one headline. Or: “Israeli Retaliatory Strike in Gaza Kills Woman and Child, Palestinians Say,” according to another.

Such was the media’s way of describing two weeks of Palestinian assaults that began when Hamas killed a Jewish couple as they were driving with their four children in the northern West Bank. Two days later, a Palestinian teenager stabbed two Israelis to death in Jerusalem’s Old City, and also slashed a woman and a 2-year-old boy. Hours later, another knife-wielding Palestinian was shot and killed by Israeli police after he slashed a 15-year-old Israeli boy in the chest and back.

Other Palestinian attacks include the stabbing of two elderly Israeli men and an assault with a vegetable peeler on a 14-year-old. On Sunday, an Arab-Israeli man ran over a 19-year-old female soldier at a bus stop, then got out of his car, stabbed her, and attacked two men and a 14-year-old girl. Several attacks have been carried out by women, including a failed suicide bombing.

Regarding the causes of this Palestinian blood fetish, Western news organizations have resorted to familiar tropes. Palestinians have despaired at the results of the peace process—never mind that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas just declared the Oslo Accords null and void. Israeli politicians want to allow Jews to pray atop the Temple Mount—never mind that Benjamin Netanyahu denies it and has barred Israeli politicians from visiting the site. There’s always the hoary “cycle of violence” formula that holds nobody and everybody accountable at one and the same time.

Left out of most of these stories is some sense of what Palestinian leaders have to say. As in these nuggets from a speech Mr. Abbas gave last month: “Al Aqsa Mosque is ours. They [Jews] have no right to defile it with their filthy feet.” And: “We bless every drop of blood spilled for Jerusalem, which is clean and pure blood, blood spilled for Allah.”

Then there is the goading of the Muslim clergy. “Brothers, this is why we recall today what Allah did to the Jews,” one Gaza imam said Friday in a recorded address, translated by the invaluable Middle East Media Research Institute, or Memri. “Today, we realize why the Jews build walls. They do not do this to stop missiles but to prevent the slitting of their throats.”

Then, brandishing a six-inch knife, he added: “My brother in the West Bank: Stab!”

Imagine if a white minister in, say, South Carolina preached this way about African-Americans, knife and all: Would the news media be supine in reporting it? Would we get “both sides” journalism of the kind that is pro forma when it comes to Israelis and Palestinians, with lengthy pieces explaining—and implicitly justifying—the minister’s sundry grievances, his sense that his country has been stolen from him?

And would this be supplemented by the usual fake math of moral opprobrium, which is the stock-in-trade of reporters covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? In the Middle East version, a higher Palestinian death toll suggests greater Israeli culpability. (Perhaps Israeli paramedics should stop treating stabbing victims to help even the score.) In a U.S. version, should the higher incidence of black-on-white crime be cited to “balance” stories about white supremacists?

Didn’t think so.

Treatises have been written about the media’s mind-set when it comes to telling the story of Israel. We’ll leave that aside for now. The significant question is why so many Palestinians have been seized by their present blood lust—by a communal psychosis in which plunging knives into the necks of Jewish women, children, soldiers and civilians is seen as a religious and patriotic duty, a moral fulfillment. Despair at the state of the peace process, or the economy? Please. It’s time to stop furnishing Palestinians with the excuses they barely bother making for themselves.

Above all, it’s time to give hatred its due. We understand its explanatory power when it comes to American slavery, or the Holocaust. We understand it especially when it is the hatred of the powerful against the weak. Yet we fail to see it when the hatred disturbs comforting fictions about all people being basically good, or wanting the same things for their children, or being capable of empathy.

Today in Israel, Palestinians are in the midst of a campaign to knife Jews to death, one at a time. This is psychotic. It is evil. To call it anything less is to serve as an apologist, and an accomplice.



Bret Stephens deserves another Pulitzer for this piece

MEMRI: Rafah Cleric Brandishes Knife in Friday Sermon, Calls upon Palestinians to Stab Jews

In an October 9 Friday sermon delivered at the Al-Abrar Mosque in Rafah, the Gaza Strip, Sheikh Muhammad Sallah "Abu Rajab" brandished a knife, calling upon his brothers in the West Bank: "Stab!" "Oh young men of the West Bank: Attack in threes and fours," he said, and "cut them into body parts."

Following are excerpts:

Muhammad Salah "Abu Rajab": Brothers, we must constantly remind the world, and everyone who has forgotten… The world must hear, via these cameras and via the Internet: This is Gaza! This is the place of trenches and guns! This is the West Bank! This is the place of bombs and daggers! This is Jerusalem… Jerusalem is the code word… This is Jerusalem… Much can be told about Jerusalem. This is where the soldiers of the Prophet Muhammad are. This is the grace of Allah. The soldiers of the Prophet Muhammad are here. Brothers, this is why we recall today what Allah did to the Jews. We recall what He did to them in Khaybar.


Today, we realize why the [Jews] build walls. They do not do this to stop missiles, but to prevent the slitting of their throats.


"Abu Rajab" brandishes a dagger and makes stabbing motions

My brother in the West Bank: Stab! My brother is the West Bank: Stab the myths of the Talmud in their minds! My brother in the West Bank: Stab the myths about the temple in their hearts!


Today, we have declared a curfew [in Israel]. Listen to what the Jews are saying to one another: Stay at home, or go outside to your death. They have no alternative. Oh men of the West Bank, the first phase of the operation requires stabbing in order to bring about a curfew.


Now, we are imposing a curfew with daggers, and in the next phase, which is Allah willing, about to be realized… We shall not send you back to Russia, Bulgaria, the Ukraine, or Poland. We shall not send you back there. You have come here… The Islamic military court has ruled… This court, presided over by the Prophet's Companion Sad Ibn Mu'adh, has ruled… Sa'd Ibn Mu'adh has reappeared – in the West Bank. Sa'd Ibn Mu'adh is now in the streets of Jerusalem, Afula, Tel Aviv, and the Negev. The Islamic military court has made the divined ruling: You will get nothing in our land except for slaughtering or stabbing. Why? The world will say that we are terrorists, that we incite. Yes! "Oh Prophet, sufficient for you and for whoever follows you of the believers is Allah. Oh Prophet of Allah, incite the believers to fight." Why? Oh America, oh Crusader aggressors, oh Arab Zionists, oh Zionists from among the criminal Jews: Are we aggressors? You have come of your own volition to be slaughtered on our land.


"When the promise of the Hereafter comes, We shall gather you from various nation." Allah has brought the Jews, His enemies and the enemies of humanity, who have destroyed our homes in Syria, Iraq, Egypt, and everywhere.


Oh people of Al-Abrar Mosque and the people of Rafah – from this mosque of yours, you have the honor of delivering these messages to the men of the West Bank: Form stabbing quads. We don't want just a single stabber. Oh young men of the West Bank: Attack in threes and fours. Some should restrain the victim, while others attack him with axes and butcher knives.


Do not fear what will be said about you. Oh men of the West Bank, next time, attack in a group of three, four, or five. Attack them in groups. Cut them into body parts.



You watch this clip and you wonder whether our political classes are just dumb?  Is it not obvious that the only way out of this is that the Israeli government apply sufficient counter force to convince these jihadists that the Israel is just too strong for them to wage jihad against it and that they are forced to call for a hunda or a tadiah which would be fully in accordance with their religious beliefs.    A hudna may last up to 10 years but if Israel maintains its deterrence it would be extended into another hudna. A series of back to back hudnas  is the best we can hope for until Islam reforms itself by Muslims themselves  

Thursday, October 8, 2015

Sisyphus Again

What can be said about all these terror attacks that the Palestinian jihadists have been perpetrating the last 10 days?  Nothing much new.   Until the world and the Israeli government admit that this is jihad we will go on repeating everything that has already been said and do nothing.  If fact, thing will just get worse as with the Iranian deal and with the hijrah into Europe, especially Merkel’s Germany.

Here is an article I wrote in February, 2009:

Op-Ed: Sisyphus Starts Again

They haven't changed anything or learned anything.

A quote from the New York Times of January 21: "President Obama moved swiftly to engage on the Middle East on Wednesday, calling Israeli and Arab leaders on his first morning in office and preparing to appoint a seasoned peace negotiator and former senator, George J. Mitchell, as his special emissary to the region."

"There they go again," was my reaction. After Oslo I, Oslo II, Taba, Wye, Tenet, Mitchell, Zinni, Sharm El-Sheikh, Roadmap, Annapolis, is this next flop going to be called Mitchell II? Why be so negative? Well, they have not changed anything or learned anything from previous disasters, so why would we expect a different result? 

If I were walking on a sidewalk and an ant about to be squashed by my foot would scream, "Excuse me, could you please be careful and consider the consequences of your actions?" then I would, although I am not a Jainist or Buddhist monk, definitely make sure that I watch where I was going. Is it not reasonable for us, the reluctant human guinea pigs in this experiment designed by people who know what is best for us, to request three basic conditions?

1. Accountability

Why is it that politicians who concoct these "peace processes" which blow up not in their faces, but in our faces, are never held accountable for their failures? Imagine if there were a law requiring that with every consecutive failure a monetary fine would increase and the relevant author of the failed peace plan would be held personally accountable for the debacle.

Let's say that the first three attempts are considered reasonable and therefore exempt, but that for all subsequent ones the price of failure would be $100,000, rising linearly with each attempt. A geometric progression, with the fine doubling every time, is also an idea to be considered, since it would wake up the peace dreamers much faster. I have no doubts that with the fine hovering over their pockets, politicians would either head for the libraries to educate themselves on why all previous attempts failed, or abandon experimenting with our lives altogether.

2. Knowledge 

But to help them avoid such unpleasant fines, how about demanding from "peace processors" that they go through rigorous basic training before they come up with their ideas. If I managed to read some three dozen books on jihad in the last seven years since 9/11, surely the people who decide our future should be aware of the works of Ibn Warraq, Ibn Ishaq, Bat Ye'or, Bernard Lewis, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Robert Spencer or V.S. Naipaul. No?

The Hamas Charter would be compulsory, while Churchill's The Gathering Storm would be part of the electives. 

3. Personal Experience

Nothing helps more for understanding than feeling on your own skin what the problem is. I must admit that until I started dodging falling Grads in Be'er Sheva (for two weeks) I really could not fully understand what people in Sderot had to deal with for eight years. I had written letters and articles in sympathy with their plight, but until it happened to me it just did not have the same urgency. How could they have tolerated it for eight years?

Therefore, as an elective, I suggest that peace process framers spend at least a week in similar conditions before they come up with their plan. Today, after Operation Cast Lead, there are no rockets, but based on previous experience, not for too long. Even better, the peace processors could send chosen representatives of their families to spend a week in Sderot when their plan flops. 

After campaigning and winning the elections on the slogan of "Change", surely this change in the Middle East peace initiative would be welcomed by the Obama administration. 

Tuesday, October 6, 2015

Rubio calls for US, allies to establish 'safe zone' for Syria rebels, refugees

Kind of sad for the American press and TV news when a scene from Homeland says more about the present situation in the Middle East than the whole American media together

BBC bias

This incident underscores the essence of Israel’s struggle.

 Foreign news purveyors tend to sanitize terrorist crimes against Jews – when they bother to report them. They also dehumanize Jewish victims when referring to them by generic designations with distinct derogatory nuances.

The heartrending tragedy of Adele Banita offers a stark case in point.

She, her husband, and two babies were attacked by a knife-wielding Arab terrorist on Jerusalem’s main Old City route to and from the Western Wall. Aharon Banita was stabbed to death and one toddler was slashed. Adele escaped the murderer’s grasp – and with his blade still stuck in her neck – ran to raise the alarm, to save her children.

It was the stuff of nightmares, of sadistic horror flicks.

The Arab merchants all around her not only failed to help, but they mocked and sneered at the profusely bleeding young woman. They spat on her. They slapped her. They jeeringly wished death upon her.

This was every bit as hideous as the Holocaust-era Ukrainians, who – if they didn’t murder with their own hands – excitedly cheered the murderers on. Not only did the homicidal assailant not regard Adele as a human being, but neither did the bystanders who unequivocally supported him.

This incident underscores the essence of Israel’s struggle.

We face bloodthirsty enemies who blatantly deny our right to be anywhere in this country, not only in Jerusalem, but Tel Aviv. They aren’t out merely to “protect al-Aksa Mosque from defilement by filthy Jewish feet” (in the words of PA chieftain Mahmoud Abbas) – they also aim to prevent Jews from praying at the Western Wall.

Indeed, any Jewish presence is per se anathema to them.

Adele’s youngsters would have been slaughtered had help not arrived in time. Indeed death would have been the fate of the four children who witnessed the brutal drive-by execution near Itamar of their parents – Naama and Eitam Henkin – had the terrorists not inadvertently shot one of their own.

But was any of this viciousness and ghastliness conveyed to news consumers abroad? Quite the reverse occurred.

The BBC website headline announced: “Palestinian shot dead after Jerusalem attack kills two.”

The BBC didn’t note that the murderer was shot in the midst of his killing spree. The BBC left it unclear who killed whom and who the “killed two” (mentioned in the passive voice) were. After repeated complaints, the phrasing was changed three times – yet in all the truth remained obfuscated.

Significantly, the BBC never apologized.

Its conduct was worse than al-Jazeera’s, whose re-cap was only slightly less misleading: “Palestinian shot dead after fatal stabbing in Jerusalem; 2 Israeli victims also killed.”

Clearly we expect less of the Qatar-based network than of the London one. Yet, unlike the BBC, al-Jazeera apologized and revised the headline to read, “Two Israelis killed in stabbing attack; Palestinian suspect shot dead.”

These weren’t the only offenders by a long shot.

The Washington Post’s follow-up reports aroused dismay by omitting the context in which events unfolded. As tensions grew, the tenor of the foreign media was of an Israeli- initiated escalation, divorced from any background.

Israel came out looking bad.

When the media overseas at all bothered to note who the victims were, they were mostly described as “settlers.”

Presumably that categorized them as somehow culpable.

A broad-spectrum sense of something undesirable adheres to “settlers” that makes shedding their blood semi-understandable, even if this is only tacitly hinted at.

This tactic is used regardless where victims reside. It’s an all-purpose castigation. It was even applied last year to the four elderly congregants axed to death during morning services in a west Jerusalem synagogue, well within Israel proper. It’s a non-specific unspoken insinuation of illegitimacy against all Jews in Israel.

Just as the identities of the four were never dwelled upon, so Adele’s story wasn’t told. But callous dehumanization is only the beginning. It gets lots worse when reports are skewed to the extent that a casual glance at the headline suggests Israeli wrongdoing.

Likewise suggested is that the attacker is the victim and that there is no connection between him and his actual victims. Such outrageous word-manipulations cannot be dismissed as unintentional.

Europe’s Migrant Crisis Is Simply Muslim History vs. Western Fantasy

by Raymond Ibrahim

Progressive Europe erased or rewrote its own history. Now they can't recognize an invasion by people to whom history is everything.

 The world as understood by Islamic nations varies wildly from the Western nations’ understanding of the world. Whereas Muslims see the world through the lens of history, the West has jettisoned or rewritten history to suit its ideologies.

This dichotomy of Muslim and Western thinking is evident everywhere. When the Islamic State declared that it will “conquer Rome” and “break its crosses,” few in the West realized that those are the verbatim words and goals of Islam’s founder and his companions as recorded in Muslim sources — words and goals that prompted over a thousand years of jihad on Europe.

 Most recently, the Islamic State released a map of the areas it plans on expanding into over the next five years. Not only are Mideast and Asian regions included, but the map includes European lands: Portugal, Spain, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Greece, parts of Russia, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, Armenia, Georgia, Crete, and Cyprus.

The reason for this is simple. According to Islamic law, once a country has been conquered (or “opened,” as the euphemistic Arabic words it), it becomes Islamic in perpetuity.

This, incidentally, is the real reason Muslims despise Israel. The motivation is not sympathy for the Palestinians — if it was, neighboring Arab nations would’ve absorbed them long ago, just as they would be absorbing all of today’s Muslim refugees. No, Israel is hated because the descendants of “apes and pigs” — according to the Koran — dare to rule land that was once “opened” by jihad and therefore must be returned to Islam. (Read more about Islam’s “How Dare You?” phenomenon to understand the source of Islamic rage.)

All of the aforementioned European nations are seen as being currently “occupied” by Christian “infidels” and in need of “liberation.” This is why jihadi organizations refer to terrorist attacks on such countries as “defensive jihads.”One rarely hears about Islamic designs on European nations because they are large and blocked together, altogether distant from the Muslim world. Conversely, tiny Israel is in the heart of the Islamic world, hence it has received most of the jihadi attention: it was a more realistic conquest. But now that the “caliphate” has been reborn and is expanding before a paralytic West, dreams of reconquering portions of Europe — if not through jihad, then through migration — are becoming more plausible, perhaps more so than conquering Israel.

Because of their historical experiences with Islam, some central and east European nations are aware of Muslim aspirations. Hungary’s prime minister even cited his nation’s unpleasant past under Islamic rule (in the guise of the Ottoman Empire) as a reason to disallow Muslim refugees from entering. But for more “enlightened” Western nations — that is, for idealistic nations that reject or rewrite history according to their subjective fantasies — Hungary’s reasoning is unjust, inhumane, and racist.

To be sure, most of Europe has experience with Islamic depredations. As late as the 17th century, even Iceland was being invaded by Muslim slave traders. Roughly 800 years earlier, in 846, Rome was sacked and the Vatican defiled by Muslim raiders.

Some of the Muslims migrating to Italy vow to do the same today, and Pope Francis acknowledges it — yet he still suggests that “you can take precautions, and put these people to work.”

We’ve seen this sort of thinking before: the U.S. State Department cited a lack of “job opportunities” as reason for the existence of the Islamic State.

Perhaps because the UK, Scandinavia, and North America were never conquered and occupied by the sword of Islam — unlike the southeast European nations that are rejecting Muslim refugees — they feel free to rewrite history according to their subjective ideals. Specifically, they stress that historic Christianity is bad and all other religions and people are good. Indeed, books and courses on the “sins” of Christian Europe from the Crusades to colonialism abound. (Most recently, a book traced the rise of Islamic supremacism in Egypt to the disciplining of a rude Muslim girl by a Christian nun.)

This “new history” – which claims that Muslims are the historic “victims” of “intolerant” Western Christians — has metastasized everywhere, from high school to college and from Hollywood to the news media, institutions which are becoming increasingly harder to distinguish from one another. When U.S. President Barack Obama condemned medieval Christians as a way to relativize Islamic State atrocities — or at best to claim that religion, any religion, isnever the driving force of violence — he was merely being representative of the mainstream way history is taught in the West.

Even good, authoritative books of history contribute to this distorted thinking. While such works may mention “Ottoman expansion” into Europe, the Islamic element is omitted. Turks are portrayed as just another competitive people, out to carve a niche for themselves in Europe with motivations no different than, say, the Austrians, their rivals. That the “Ottomans” were operating under the distinctly Islamic banner of jihad, just like the Islamic State is today, is never made clear.

Generations of this false history have led the West to think that being suspicious or judgmental of Muslims is unacceptable, and that Muslims need to be accommodated. Perhaps then, they’ll like the West.

Such is progressive wisdom.

Meanwhile, in schools across much of the Muslim world, children are being indoctrinated into glorifying and reminiscing about the jihadi conquests of yore — conquests by the sword and in the name of Allah. While the progressive West demonizes European/Christian history — when I was in elementary school, Christopher Columbus was a hero, when I got into college, he became a villain — Mehmet the Conqueror, whose atrocities against Christian Europeans make the Islamic State look like boy scouts, is praised every year in “secular” Turkey on the anniversary of the savage sack of Constantinople.

The result of Western fantasies and Islamic history is that today Muslims are entering the West unfettered in the guise of refugees. They refuse to assimilate with the “infidels,” and form enclaves — in Islamic terminology, ribats – that serve as frontier posts to wage jihad against the infidel one way or another.

This in not conjecture. The Islamic State is intentionally driving the refugee phenomenon, and has promised to send half a million people — mostly Muslims — into Europe. It claims that 4,000 of these refugees are its own operatives:

Just wait. … It’s our dream that there should be a caliphate not only in Syria but in all the world, and we will have it soon, inshallah.

It is often said that those who ignore history are destined to repeat it. What happens to those who rewrite history in a way to demonize their ancestors while whitewashing the crimes of their ancestors’ enemies? The result is before us. History is not repeating itself; sword-waving Muslims are not militarily conquering Europe. Rather, they are being allowed to walk right in.


Robert Spencer explains the larger implications of the fight against the Islamic State

11: 11 into the video

 “As a matter of fact, last February they [ISIS] explained to us after the manner of Hitler in Mein Kampf, exactly what they were going to do and how they are going to do it, and they said last February, that they are going to flood Europe with 500 thousand refugees. Does that sound familiar? Do you think conceivably there can be any connection to this present refugee crisis? Of course, world leaders Barak Obama, David Cameron and Angela Merkel and all the rest of them, they all are sure that, of course, there is no possible connection between the Islamic State threatening to flood Europe with refugees, just a few months ago, and Europe being flooded with refugees now. Any connection would be inconceivable. However the Islam State, a spokesman from them recently said “we’ve already got 4000 of our men into Europe among the refugees and more are coming all the time.”

Sunday, October 4, 2015

Obama’s Orwellian switch - at the UN General Assembly he boycotts Israel and supports Iran

Breitbart News has learned that President Obama called U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power into a video conference before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Speech to the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday.

George Orwell: 1984, Part 2, Chapter 9

The speech had been proceeding for perhaps twenty minutes when a messenger hurried on to the platform and a scrap of paper was slipped into the speaker's hand. He unrolled and read it without pausing in his speech. Nothing altered in his voice or manner, or in the content of what he was saying, but suddenly the names were different.

Without words said, a wave of understanding rippled through the crowd. Oceania was at war with Eastasia! The next moment there was a tremendous commotion. The banners and posters with which the square was decorated were all wrong! Quite half of them had the wrong faces on them. It was sabotage! The agents of Goldstein had been at work! There was a riotous interlude while posters were ripped from the walls, banners torn to shreds and trampled underfoot. The Spies performed prodigies of activity in clambering over the rooftops and cutting the streamers that fluttered from the chimneys. But within two or three minutes it was all over.

The orator, still gripping the neck of the microphone, his shoulders hunched forward, his free hand clawing at the air, had gone straight on with his speech. One minute more, and the feral roars of rage were again bursting from the crowd. The Hate continued exactly as before, except that the target had been changed.

The thing that impressed Winston in looking back was that the speaker had switched from one line to the other actually in midsentence, not only without a pause, but without even breaking the syntax.